Much earlier this month, in a blog comment at the bottom of the front page in today's arrangement of items, Ppen said this:

> But I don't need a provider and yet my brain
> still operates under the premise.

Paglia once said something like that, too, about an even more personal context (too personal to describe in this random citation), and she's a freaking lesbian... One who acknowledges the power of biology on her character, as all sensible adults should.

People, male or female, who imagine they've outgrown these patterns by dint of their magnificent individual rationality are kidding themselves, but probably no one else. They're full of shit. The ones who think they've surpassed them by being tough are even worse.

Props to Ppen for living in the moment, seeing that truth, and then living as she wants to live anyway.

That's what Islam needs to do.

Also Catholicism. And the Scientologists, and the Moonies, and the Presbyterians....

Because safety.

Bungled the link crid

But while on the subject of saftey

I wonder how many people who see nothing wrong with blowing up a baby with a grenade to arrest a dime bag weed dealer will find something wrong with this

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mexican-helicopter-crosses-u-s-border-fires-border-patrol-n142966

They were after all just trying to keep us safe from ourselves

Struggling people in NYC make $100-138K a year:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/atlantic-yards-affordable-housing-families-making-100g-officials-article-1.1847375

> But I don't need a provider and yet my brain
> still operates under the premise.

Crid, this is called our evolved psychology. I'm similar. Same as you, like all men, prioritize beauty in a woman: which amounts to signs a woman is a healthy, fertile candidate to bear a child (pass on your DNA).

Read Robert Trivers on parental investment theory and Buss and Schmitt on strategic differences in mating. Buss posts his papers and Trivers' are findable.

> Anyone seen my arm?

I guess this seems somewhat on-topic then, another study that doesn't look good for circumcision:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9393302/?i=2&from=%2F10893633

"Among the 238 boys under 3 years, those circumcised were significantly more likely to have non-cosmetic problems, including coronal adhesions, trapped epithelial debris, a reddened meatus, preputial stenosis (phimosis) and balanitis, than were boys with a foreskin ... CONCLUSIONS: ... The circumcised penis requires more care than the intact penis during the first 3 years of life. Parents should be instructed to retract and clean any skin covering the glans in circumcised boys, to prevent adhesions forming and debris from accumulating. Penile inflammation (balanitis) may be more common in circumcised boys; preputial stenosis (phimosis) affects circumcised and intact boys with equal frequency. The revision of circumcision for purely cosmetic reasons should be discouraged on both medical and ethical grounds"

This is how you teach Pride and Prejudice to the modern youth

http://youtu.be/5Nm61IoNdHg

The revision of circumcision for purely cosmetic reasons should be discouraged on both medical and ethical grounds"

The most common "reason" given for getting a circumcision is preventing UTIs

There are roughly 2 million boys born each year, roughly half are circumcised. 2 mil/2 = 1 mil

Statistically 200 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 UTI and Roughly 100 boys die every year from complications

So, 1 million/100 = 10,000 /200 = 50.

So in order to prevent 50 UTIs we kill one child. That seem like a rational trade off to anyone?

> Crid, this is called our evolved psychology.

Only by ninnies.

Either Amy Adams is classy or she has a good publicist:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/06/27/amy-adams-gives-first-class-airline-seat-to-soldier-sits-in-coach-passenger/?intcmp=obnetwork

Whatever the truth I'm hoping that she really does have such class. The world could always use more good people like her.

> Crid, this is called our evolved psychology.

Ya know Crid, my evolved psychology says Sarah Palin is hot and Michelle Obama is not. So there's that.

Psychology!

Because FEELINGS, you bigoted jerks!

Evolved!

Because Darwin, and therefore SCIENCE, you uneducated heathens!

A trending twofer for the general-interest reader, who can't be bothered with the drudgery of actual academic achievement-- Costs money! Takes time! No fun!

I think that kid is so gorgeous I like her even in shitty movies.

Has she ever made a good one?

DOESN'T MATTER. Amy Adams.

Amy Adams was abandoned by both her parents.

Mom left because she was a lesbian, dad sent her off somewhere.

Chick grew up poor, alone and on her own merits.

Even then, I bet howling beauty was an asset in her achievement.

> my evolved psychology says Sarah Palin is
> hot and Michelle Obama is not.

Well, before we shuffle off to the evening gowns part of the competition, I'd like to see an hour of Greco-Roman, followed by some straight fisticuffs.

The selection of your champion need not be rushed.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-pfizer-breakthrough-miraculously-extends-lifes,36378/

> The most common "reason"

Quotation marks!

Commenters sometimes let their enthusiasm overwhelm their capacity for convincing citation.

I've seen that original study some years ago that showed ~117 deaths per annum from circumcision in the US, but I couldn't find it recently when I looked for it again. I haven't found any other studies on it. So we might not really know. But given that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 circumcisions are performed annually in the US, the figure seems reasonable to me - the actual may well be higher. And that is just deaths - it doesn't count other horrors like accidental full or partial amputation of the remainder of penis.

My grandfather was a doctor and I remember one of the lessons he drilled into our heads was, "all surgery is dangerous - always" - there's no such thing as a 'small' surgery, he'd say, there is always some risk of death. And newborn babies are tiny and vulnerable - a.o. as they only have 12 ounces of blood. Most other countries that practice circumcision have much higher death rates, which while not meaningful on its own, also tells us the baseline doesn't seem off (e.g. if some poor African country had lower death rates then there'd be obvious reason to be suspicious of the number).

Another view is to benchmark the figure against other industrialized countries - e.g. when circumcision was stopped in the UK it was killing approx 12 kids a year - normalizing for population, population growth, and circumcision rates, puts the ~117 figure in the same ballpark.

I'd bet a thousand dollars you haven't "seen that original study."

Are you "Tony," the monograph-monger? Aha!

> the figure seems reasonable to me

Um, not persuaded.

That's because you don't care about truth and reason .. no surprise there.

Please do post the study you have proving what the real figures are.

Crid, are you honestly claiming that circumcision results in zero deaths in the USA? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

This looks a LOT more reliable to me than "Crid on a comment's forum" - I think I'm more apt to trust a scientific journal than you pulling numbers out the air to satisfy some make-believe sense of denial:

http://www.mensstudies.info/journals/thymos-journal-of-boyhood-studies/

The actual journal you claim doesn't exist is available here:

http://mensstudies.metapress.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/

The article you claim doesn't exist is amazingly cited by at least 17 other scientific articles:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2080524914623258410&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

That is miraculous considering it doesn't exist.

That's five links in a row for nothing: I never "claimed" anything at all.

One of your darling webpages cites Harriman, a town that's been mentioned here before.

I don't understand why you're so eager to talk to me about your penis.